Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials
Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/s0197-2456(97)00150-5
复制
发表时间：
1998-04-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Rees, R
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Vickers, A;Goyal, N;Rees, R
目的：确定源自某些国家的临床试验是否总是有积极的结果。数据来源：Medline试验摘要（1966年1月- 1995年6月）。研究选择：进行了两个独立的研究。第一组试验将一组接受针灸治疗的受试者的临床结果与一组接受安慰剂、不接受治疗或不接受针灸干预的受试者的临床结果进行比较。在第二项研究中，将发表在中国、日本、俄罗斯/苏联或台湾的针灸以外干预措施的随机或对照试验与发表在英国的试验进行比较。资料提取：盲法评价者确定纳入和结局，并按原产国单独对每个试验进行分类。数据综合：在针灸试验研究中，1085篇摘要中有252篇符合纳入标准。在检查针灸以外的干预措施的研究中，1100篇摘要中有405篇符合纳入标准。在英国发表的试验中，75%的人认为测试治疗优于对照组。中国、日本、俄罗斯/苏联和台湾的结果分别为99%、89%、97%和95%。没有在中国或俄罗斯/苏联发表的试验发现测试治疗是无效的。结论：一些国家公布的阳性结果比例异常高。发表偏倚是一个可能的解释。进行系统评价的研究人员应仔细考虑如何管理来自这些国家的数据。(C) Elsevier Science Inc., 1998。
Objective: To determine whether clinical trials originating in certain countries always have positive results. Data sources: Abstracts of trials from Medline (January 1966-Tune 1995). Study selection: Two separate studies were conducted. The first included trials in which the clinical outcome of a group of subjects receiving acupuncture was compared to that of a group receiving placebo, no treatment, or a nonacupuncture intervention. In the second study, randomized or controlled trials of interventions other than acupuncture that were published in China, Japan, Russia/USSR, or Taiwan were compared to those published in England. Data extraction: Blinded reviewers determined inclusion and outcome and separately classified each trial by country of origin. Data synthesis: In the study of acupuncture trials, 252 of 1085 abstracts met the inclusion criteria. Research conducted in certain countries was uniformly favorable to acupuncture; all trials originating in China, Japan, Hong Kong, and Taiwan were positive, as were 10 out of 11 of those published in Russia/USSR. In studies that examined interventions other than acupuncture, 405 of 1100 abstracts met the inclusion criteria. Of trials published in England, 75% gave the test treatment as superior to control. The results for China, Japan, Russia/USSR, and Taiwan were 99%, 89%, 97%, and 95%, respectively. No trial published in China or Russia/USSR found a test treatment to be ineffective. Conclusions: Some countries publish unusually high proportions of positive results. Publication bias is a possible explanation. Researchers undertaking systematic reviews should consider carefully how to manage data from these countries. (C) Elsevier Science Inc. 1998.